said the 16-year-old environmental activist Greta Thunberg, that you need nuclear power to protect the climate? There are adults who lead the sardonically in the to field.

it Has not. However, she has pointed to the recent report of the so-called intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC), the international consulting organization of the questions for the climate. It says that it is still possible to limit global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius, under three conditions: a global phase-out of coal-fired power generation to 2050, technical capture of carbon dioxide (CO₂) from the atmosphere, a radical change in the transport and consumer behaviour. The IPCC has examined 85 different ways to achieve all of this. In most scenarios, the nuclear power, which delivers around eleven percent of the electricity will be expanded significantly.

this Is the claim made by the IPCC? No. The IPCC Reports, physicists, and geographers, engineers, Economists, sociologists, and many others. You try, as best one can, the climate is to summarize knowledge. Your scenarios should describe a rational, understandable range of possible developments. That’s all. The IPCC would never go so far, a sentence such as “Without nuclear power is no climate protection”.

the production of Electricity from nuclear energy produces far less carbon than fossil technology, even if you look at the life cycle of the fuel. In climate policy, it looks even better than solar energy and is similar to hydropower and wind energy. Countries with a high share of nuclear power such as Sweden or France, in particular, because of him, its climate targets.

The German, however, have opted for the phase-out of nuclear energy until the year 2024. There were good reasons for that. Nuclear power plants are of conventional type do not have to be held through technical equipment permanently in check, so you run out of rudder. To the citizens of the creeps, because you know that this technique is complex, and negligences, mistakes, and cheating can add up to you failing. In Fukushima for example, it was enough that the emergency diesel generators were not designed for large water waves. Future of nuclear technology in turn may be due to physical reasons, it is foolproof, but who knows what can go on the way everything that can go wrong.

the Object could be that the health risk from nuclear technology is many times less than the hazard from coal, Oil, and Gas. It corresponds approximately to the solar cell technology, which brings its own poisons. In this Consideration, the climate, poison CO₂ is not taken into account. The climate will be included in the risk comparison, as follows: The coal is the number one Killer.

Therefore, it is better so, that China needs its growing power by means of nuclear energy. Which, of course, not it can be concluded that for the purposes of climate protection in the world, hundreds or even thousands of nuclear power plants would have to be pulled. That would save expensive and would cost a lot to a lot of political effort that should be better in other strategies invests: energy, reduction of meat consumption, continued development of Wind, Solar and water power plants, Storage technologies.

This article dates back to the TIME no 14/2019. Here you can read the entire issue.

Certain of the rich industrial countries could afford to dispense with Nuclear power plants and to protect the climate. Germany is one of them. Up to the year 2024, it should reduce the CO₂ emissions compared to 1990 to 40 percent. The Germans have committed. However, it will not succeed, although in the nineties the industry of the GDR was torn down. Climate protection and nuclear phase-out can go together only if the behavior changes massively. If the motorized individual traffic is restricted, which reduces heat loss by better insulation of buildings and the industrial demand for electricity is controlled in such a way that it does not respond to situations in which the sun is shining and the Wind is not blowing. The worst gaps were still with gas-fired power plants close, the less carbon to produce than the coal-fired power generation. In this way, Germany has not advanced really.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

5  +  3  =